Law and Health: due process and civil society

Page v Smith explained

Following my previous post about the controversial case of Page v Smith [1995] UKHL 7,I decided it might be a good idea to draft a simplified version of what actually happened in the case.

First – a quick re-cap of the facts of the case:

In 1987, Mr Page and Mr Smith were involved in a minor road traffic accident which, it was agreed, was the fault of Mr Smith. Mr Page sustained no direct physical injury from the accident but did suffer a major relapse of his myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME – also sometimes known, unhelpfully, as chronic fatigue syndrome or CFS) and so he claimed damages from Mr Smith. The case went all the way up to the House of Lords (which in 2009 became known as the Supreme Court). The House of Lords (HL) found in Mr Page’s favour, although not unanimously. The Law Lords remitted the matter back down to the Court of Appeal for a final determination. The Court of Appeal, having found against Mr Page the first time around, now found in his favour – in 1996.

So, in the interests of clarity, I have come up with this explanation.

Court of Appeal (1): Nasty lot. Lots of squabbling. Couldn’t make up their minds so they took Mr P’s money away and buggered off to the pub.

House of Lords: More judges. More squabbling. P has ME; P has accident; P suffers “nervous shock” [an archaic legal term] caused by accident; nervous shock causes a “recognisable psychiatric illness” (bit wobbly about exactly what illness because we’re only pretend doctors and PTSD is still in beta at the moment); said illness triggers relapse of ME. Bingo. My judgment’s bigger than yours.

Court of Appeal (2): Back again FFS. Last lot buggered off to the pub and forgot to determine causation. Of course the accident made Mr P worse. Give the man his money back and get those bloody insurance companies out of here. Mine’s a G & T. Obiter.